Governments in space...well I would assume we are talking of new ones here? There should be no U.S. on the moon am I right? Should Earth countries have control of space? I think not. My Guess is when space travel becomes common people will start their own "territories" just like colonization of the Americas people will take over on their own, we as humans are power hungry, we strive for it, sad but true.

The best type of government although can't be easily evaluated, it would take much thought to control all of this anarchy at once. Economical and personal freedom would be the best for expansion, im guessing it couldnt really be enforced anyway. Were the settlers enforced going west? No, so we won't be going to space, we have to figure out ways to control all the people who venture forth into worlds not our own.

Until then I don't think today's governments serve any good example in the effort to control space.
And that is the exact question, WHO will control space?

To control the space like controlling the territory of a country is impossible because it's too voluminous.

Only territories of planets, space stations and spacecrafts can be controlled.

But this too might be impossible if they are private - as your private house or what's going on in it cannot be controlled by others. This statement is valid in countries where is freedom.

Ships at the oceans ar not controlled too.

So problems return that were discussed earlier. If we leave planets aside it could be claimed that each spacecrafts has to be flagged like ocean ships have to be flagged. Then it would be sure that a countries law is valid onboard that ship. Additionaly an analogon of the International Laws of Oceans (Sea?) might help.

But all this only can help when someone goes to the courts.

But I have to add an important statement - no government or other external control is required if a community in space is small enough to keep control and its "chief" is a person that respects the law. That can be compared to the negotiations of the captain of an ocean ship.

To control the space like controlling the territory of a country is impossible because it's too voluminous.

Only territories of planets, space stations and spacecrafts can be controlled.

But this too might be impossible if they are private - as your private house or what's going on in it cannot be controlled by others. This statement is valid in countries where is freedom.

Ships at the oceans ar not controlled too.

Nonsense. The oceans are controlled, just as space will be controlled. The primary mission of the United States Navy is to keep the sea lanes open. You'll note that, aside from the area around Indonesia, which has refused to allow the US in, there are no more pirates. No one has the capability to threaten international commerce anymore.

Quote:

But I have to add an important statement - no government or other external control is required if a community in space is small enough to keep control and its "chief" is a person that respects the law. That can be compared to the negotiations of the captain of an ocean ship.

No - the US Navy doesn't control the oceans in the sense I understand the use of the term by andromeda.

My understanding is that "control of space" means keeping the authority of laws in space. That is NOT the negotiation of the US Navy - the nnegotiation of the US Navy is a military, defensive and political one but it mustn't act as a court, a judge, an attorney or as a police like that on the roads. The US Navy can only do service for them if it is ordered to do so.

What the US Navy does at the oceans cannot be compared to that what countries and governments do bcause theier negotaions are much more than those of a Navy. andromeda is talking of governments and countries and on the international oceans these governments and countries are invalid - that's the meaning of "international". Valid there is an agreement of very much countries - if not all - on the rules to obey at the international oceans by everyone.

No - the US Navy doesn't control the oceans in the sense I understand the use of the term by andromeda.

My understanding is that "control of space" means keeping the authority of laws in space. That is NOT the negotiation of the US Navy - the nnegotiation of the US Navy is a military, defensive and political one but it mustn't act as a court, a judge, an attorney or as a police like that on the roads. The US Navy can only do service for them if it is ordered to do so.

The Navy does act that way and can act that way at need. Court-martial. They don't even need to try them in space but can clap anyone in the brig until they reach a docking station. The Navy can, and does, board vessels in international waters to search for contraband, and will take this practice tos pace.

Quote:

What the US Navy does at the oceans cannot be compared to that what countries and governments do bcause theier negotaions are much more than those of a Navy. andromeda is talking of governments and countries and on the international oceans these governments and countries are invalid - that's the meaning of "international". Valid there is an agreement of very much countries - if not all - on the rules to obey at the international oceans by everyone.

This kind of control the US Navy doesn't have.

You fail to note however, that those rules were created by those nations with strong navies and then enforced on those who did not agree with them. Consider the First and Second Barbary Wars.

Read andromeda's post more exactly - he is speaking of property rights. But the US Navy doesn't know the property rights established by constitutions and protected by laws of each country in th required detail.

If the US Navy would try to act as police concerning german ships this would cause an extended international crisis between the United States of America and the Federal Republic of Germany. Because of the political situations we are used to the other european countries would help Germany. And I suppose they would be the only ones.

What you are speaking of isn't control in the normal sense -you are speaking of control by force and out of law. I trust that the US Navy never will hurt the souvereignty of a civilian commercial ship being registered in the Federal Republic of Germany and showing the german flagg for this reason. Each ship has to show the flagg of that country it is registered in at each seaway and in each port. That most - if not all - countries of this world have agreed on and closed a treaty that includes International Sea Courts (... Ocean Courts?)

The US Navy is forbidden to act like you describe it. They can go onboard a non-american ship only if it is allowed to by the captain or if the ship doesn't show the flagg of the registering country. If it is not allowed to go on board it can and will contact that country.

Onboard a ship the laws of the registering country are valid - and the officers of the US Navy have to obey to theses laws if they go on board of this ship.

All this may be copied to spacecrafts and spaceships

But there is now civilian contreol of the international oceans by the US Navy in peace - and not by any country too. Infromation is there indeed - information provided by satellites and ships. But infromation diesn't mean control yet.

Regulation is a topic of laws and economics but not of military force and general politics -as can be seen by the examples of the former regulation of railways, common carrier, airlines and power suppliers in the US. And there is noone in this world who can do such regulation at the international ocean of his own or at the basis of his own laws and constitution - and he cannot do that in space too. He has no legal basis to do that - and he will be missing the power. There too much commercial or civilian ship at the oceans.

If the US Navy goes on board a german ship without agreement of the captain it does that based on the agreement of the german government.

This is definetly an interesting topic to say the least. Expansion into space can't be governmentally controlled, I am sure governments will try to control it in some way, after all if people on their own are leaving not only their country, but earth in general, how can it be controlled? What...stop them? Thats not freedom in any sense of the word.

Governments will try to push their power to keep expansion out of this world to a minimal, but when all is said and done they wont be able to stop it, because think about it, we arent even talking about planetary boundaries, we are talking about space and other celestial bodies! I haven't heard anything about the U.S. owning the right side above the western hemisphere up to 800,000 miles, have you? No one owns space, its there for the taking, understand control can only be so much. Governments wouldnt have the resources to compete with so much undertaking. My guess is that anything outside of Earth will be controlled on its own accord, government, territorial boundaries, everything. I am in much doubt on having U.S. and German provinces, or any country having territories out of this world. If private ventures especially seek out new worlds as land, then something else will be built up.

The basic jist of everything I just said is that space is a new frontier, JUST like the western world was back in 1492, its their for the taking, the question is, who is going to take it?
-andromeda

With the difference that we don't have sophont natives living in space, it will likely go much as did colonization of various areas on Earth. The Dutch East Indies company is a primeexample of 'corporate colonization', and used some pretty extreme measures in their work. Such a colony needs to be extremely dependent on its parent organization, by design. You don't want your multi-million dollar investment breaking free and declaring independence.

As for government-sponsored colonization, there are a few methods shown in history, all of which might work in space:

- The independent colony, which is basically a bunch of colonists who travel off to build a future. This is the cheapest type of colony (most costs are in the establishment alone), but also the one with the greatest risk of failure. Incidentally it is also the most free of colony types, since it is self-governed and only in the loosest sense under a government.

- The governancy, where a governor appointed by the parent nation rules the colony, and reports to the parent government. The colonists are subordinate to this governor, but may or may not be eligible to vote if the parent nation is democratic. Alternatively, the governor may be elected by the colony's population - or by the parent nation's voters, which may or may not include the colonists.

- The government/military facility, which is a small, closely governed outpost with a distinct purpose. Typically, a commanding officer of some sort will be in charge, and the 'colonists' are his subordinates and their dependents, similar to the population of a military base.

Lastly, there are examples of colonies that are not sponsored by an organization. This could be a cluster of refugees from persecution, a band of pirates, free thinkers searching for somewhere to think freely, or anything in between. These colonies are usually small, and limited in scope, but must needs be self-supporting from the get-go, since only their own income supports them.

The interrelation between such colonies promises to be interesting, to say the least.